October 1, 2002

7:25 AM

Now that Sen. Robert Torricelli has dropped out of the New Jersey Senate race, here's my scenario for replacing him: "The law is pretty clear and courts rule the Democrats cannot replace Torricelli on the ballot with just 35 days to go. So Torricelli resigns his seat. Gov. James McGreevey (D) appoints a replacement and then calls for the Nov 5th election to be the Special Election to fulfill the remaining two months of the Torch’s term. Then a new election, for the 6-year Senate term, is then held in January 2003. How do you think this will play out?
posted by PoliticalJunkie (7 comments total)

I think there are some good answers to your question here.
posted by machaus at 7:30 AM on October 1, 2002

You know, I've seen some mean tv spots slamming Torricelli.
Are you guys gonna vote for him anyway?

...

What?

He dropped out?
posted by matteo at 7:50 AM on October 1, 2002

First, I think this thread can stay, seeing how the first one was about the possiblity of this happening, and now, a day later, it's sort of a different story.

That said, a special election would be held two years later, not one, to maintain consistency with the bi-annual Congressional elections. (Just like Jean Carnahan is now running after her special appointment 2 years ago.) The difference is that Mr. Carnahan stayed on the ballot and actually died; this is a living Senator who has filed for election, nominated by his party, and has now changed his mind.

What I find so weird about this is how a lot of people are accusing the Democrats of orchestrating this for their own political advantage, then questioning if they actually have a legal standpoint. It seems kinda obvious to me that if this really was a planned event, someone out there has a decent enough knowledge of state and Federal election law to determine that there's a good chance of them getting their way.

My personal question is this: what if Torecelli changes his affiliation to Independent? Technically, he can't be the DNC nominee if not a member of the Democratic Party... wouldn't election rules automatically mandate a new representative candidate? (I admit I have no evidence for this, it's just a theoretical question.)
posted by XQUZYPHYR at 8:10 AM on October 1, 2002

wait--this Torricelli--he vibrates? ; >

I think you're right Junkie--it seems like the only way that's not slimy...now to see if he actually resigns his seat in time (he might miss the war votes, and the homeland security dept. vote, etc)
posted by amberglow at 8:18 AM on October 1, 2002

I think this thread is significantly different. The one from yesterday was speculation. Now we've had a day or so to hear from the major players and think about how the Democrats and Republicans can logically react to the changed scenario.

I don't think the Democrats would have gone down this path without a safe alternative to fighting it out in the courts. In fact, I suspect it's part of a strategy to make the Republicans look petty and scared by trying to force the Democrats to not have ANY candidate. The GOP could face a big backlash in Democratic New Jersey.
posted by PoliticalJunkie at 8:29 AM on October 1, 2002

First, I think this thread can stay, seeing how the first one was about the possiblity of this happening, and now, a day later, it's sort of a different story.

Then, tomorrow, FPP about Torricelli's replacement

On Thursday's FPP, the first Torricelli interview

Friday: Torricelli Flash

Finally, on Saturday, Matt changes the domain name
www.MetaTorricelli.com

There's a good thread on Torricelli (good story by the way) yesterday:
let's keep it active for a coupla days, or three
posted by matteo at 8:30 AM on October 1, 2002

According to news reports I've been reading, Toricelli resigning has not been considered an option, as it would in the eyes of many Democrats be an indignity to his term. They are all, of course, still standing on the platform that Toricelli has not actually been convicted of anything, despite the fact that most Democrats, myself included, are pretty much aware of the 99% chance that he's guilty as sin.

The GOP counter-suit is starting to shape into something very strange. As I said in an earlier post, I understand that the idea of being able to change candidates at any time is in the grand scheme damaging to the electoral process. Yet the GOP is literally countering the attempt on the claim that they don't think it's fair to be given a new candidate to run against, rant bitch sniffle.

If you've followed the NJ race, you'd know that Forrester, to be perfectly honest, doesn't have a platform. Of all his ads and speeches so far, almost all of them have been about how NJ needs someone other than Bob Toricelli. The problem with the GOP pursing their attempts to prevent a candiate substitution is seen in many eyes (and will be reflected from now until Nov. 5 on CNN and other talk shows) as an outright admission that Forrester knows he'll lose against anyone other than Toricelli.

What the "left" pundits are going to have to spin for the next few days is this question: why, even under the rule of law, are Republicans demanding that a candidate who doesn't want to run and will not accept his term if elected must stay on the ballot? In the midst of the GOP alleging that "the Democrats are simply choosing a different candidate they think has a better chance of winning," aren't the Republicans essentially choosing a different candidate they think has a better chance of losing?

In other words, the schoolyard whining can work both ways. "No backsies" doesn't seem like a very esteemed platform for the NJ Republicans to hold here. The likely plan the Democrats saw here was that any instance of the Republicans choosing to bicker about the replacement rather than claim they can defeat any candidate given to them makes them look weak.

On preview: okay, everyone stop complaining about the thread. Go to MetaTalk or e-mail Matt.
posted by XQUZYPHYR at 8:37 AM on October 1, 2002